Tag Archives: Free Malaysia Today

My Highlights of 2017

With the arrival of the new year of 2018, I’m writing a post dedicated to 2017, listing out some of the things that happened around me in the previous year.

1. A surprise letter from Tun M, the former Prime Minister of Malaysia

On the 12th of January, I received a letter from Tun Dr. Mahathir, replying to my article,“Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?” In the article, I did not even mention Tun M’s name but only commented about how the word ‘bebas’ in the agreement between DAP, PKR, PAN and Mahathir’s PPBM can undermine and violate the Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution. So Tun M replied to my article came as a real surprise but unfortunately I am sad to say that not only Tun M’s explanation does not answer my question, but it also makes the matter more confusing because the fact that the Article 3(1) is the Article that explains about Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions. [Read more…]

2. Made the news on national media

I was interviewed by Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia and Harian Metro and was featured on the front page of Utusan Malaysia which later led me to being reported on news portals including Astro Awani, MalaysiaKini,  Free Malaysia Today, Tanjak and many others receiving attention from several politicians like Mejar Jeneral (B) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom, Dr. Asyraf Wajdi, Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah and Ibrahim Ali. [Read more…]

3. Meeting YB Datuk Md Jais Sarday on his last day as the Education, Information and Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Exco of Johor

I had the chance to meet Datuk Jais Sarday in Pasir Gudang on his last day as the Education, Information and Entrepreneur and Cooperative Development Exco of Johor before moving to his new post as the Housing and Local Government Exco of Johor. [Read more…]

4. Attending the Bukit Aman Special Branch Aidilfitri Open House

On the 11th of July, I attended the Aidilfitri open house by the Bukit Aman Special Branch, where I had the chance to meet the then Deputy Inspector-General of PDRM, Tan Sri Nor Rashid Ibrahim, and even managed to get his autograph. [Read more…]

5. Witnessing the court case of Eric Paulsen v. Ustaz Hafiz Nordin

I attended the court proceedings of the High Court case of Eric Paulsen v. Ustaz Hafiz Nordin, where Eric Paulsen failed to defamation case against the Chairman of Jaringan Muslimin Pulau Pinang (JMPP), Ustaz Hafiz Nordin at the High Court of Kuala Lumpur. This is my first experience of witnessing the whole proceeding of a high profile case. [Read more…]

6. My first solo talk to a crowd of over 400 students in JB

I was invited as the official ambassador of Muafakat Pendidikan Johor, to give a speech to the students and teachers of the SMK Tan Sri Mohamed Rahmat in Kempas, Johor Bahru as part of Muafakat Pendidikan Johor’s ‘Jelajah Kemerdekaan’ program, on the 21st of August. In about an hour talk, I talk about the basic foundation of our country, starting with the history of the formation of Malaysia, basic principles of the country, the sovereignty of the Federation, and also a brief introduction to the Federal Constitution of Malaysia. [Read more…]

7. Program Ibadah Qurban dan Majlis Ramah Mesra IKSIM

I attended the Program Ibadah Qurban dan Majlis Ramah Mesra IKSIM on the 4th of September, which is my first experience in taking part and helping out at a qurban event. [Read more…]

8. Meeting Tan Sri Shahrir Samad

I got the chance to spend some times talking to Tan Sri Shahrir Samad, the Member of Parliament of the Johor Bharu. Despite how certain people tried to paint him, I find him as very polite, soft spoken, funny and very friendly. [Read more…]

9. The officiating program of the Pusat Latihan DIAN IKSIM (PLDI)

I attended the officiating program of IKSIM’s training centre in Batang Kali, Selangor; where I also met the Minister at the Prime Minister’s Department, Mejar Jeneral (B) Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom. [Read more…]

Institusi Agama Fitnah G25 & Shad Faruqi? Biar Betul!

Is this merely a very foolish mistake or is it another spiteful spin with the intention to detriment the good name of Islamic agencies?

In an article, “Religious radicalism on the rise” published by The Star on November 23, 2007, Emeritus Professor Shad Saleem Faruqi made another attack on JAKIM before focusing its attack on another Islamic agency, Institut Kajian Strategik Islam Malaysia (IKSIM).

To be fair, since the allegations were made based on “a booklet by the Malaysian Islamic Research Institute (IKSIM)”, I checked the said booklet to see what was written by IKSIM and I found the source of the chaos.

IKSIM’s words were wrongly translated from “Awas! Sekularisme, Liberalisme dan Pluralisme merupakan agenda penghakis akidah Islam dalam meruntuhkan kedaulatan Negara” to “secularism, liberalism and cultural diversity are elements that will undermine the Islamic agenda and destroy the country’s sovereignty”!

Armed with the wrong translation, Prof Shad who is also one of  the contributors to the infamous book by G25,Breaking the Silence: Voices of Moderation‘ attacked IKSIM.

It is like putting words in one’s mouth in order to attack the victim:

  1. “Cultural diversity” has not been mentioned in the book by IKSIM.
  2. The English translation of the Bahasa Melayu word “pluralisme” is pluralism.
  3. “Pluralisme” in the above sentence obviously means religious pluralism as clearly explained in a chart on page 7 of the book.
  4. In Bahasa Melayu, “cultural diversity” is ‘kepelbagaian kebudayaan’.

I guess Prof Shad has not have the chance to read the book because it is almost impossible for a learned man like him to not be able to understand the thin, simple book, except, unfortunately the person does not understand Bahasa Melayu well.

Having said that, I really pity Prof Shad for being shocked and at the same time slandering others only because of his own mistake, “I am shocked to read that “cultural diversity” is seen by IKSIM as a threat to Islam and to our nation”.

Prof Shad also questioned, “although Malaysians can embrace other religious faiths, the country is not duty-bound to protect other religions”, claiming that, “The belief that we have no duty to protect other religions is both un-Islamic and un-Malaysian”.

I sincerely hope that Prof Shad is not trying to challenge the Oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong who is the Supreme Head of the Federation!

In taking the Oath of office of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, as set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution, his Majesty declares, “……We do solemnly and truly declare that We shall at all time protect the Religion of Islam … “.

Hence, by law the Prime Minister, the ministers, the lawmakers and the government servants are bounded by his Majesty’s oath to protect the Religion of Islam as they are being tasked with the duty of administering the country on behalf of the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

In the Court of Appeal judgement of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri, where YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim stated:

“I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

However, even though “the country is not duty-bound to protect other religions” but Islam, Malaysia still guarantees “freedom of faith and conscience and cultural and legal autonomy to all religions and tribes” as long as it is not against the law of our country.

One of the main elements of a secular country is, the country is not duty-bound to protect any religion; so using the same argument, are we saying that secular countries do not guarantee “freedom of faith and conscience and cultural and legal autonomy to all religions and tribes”?

Next, Prof Shad said that the Islamic agency is challenging the supremacy of the Federal Constitution by saying that Islam has a higher position than the Federal Constitution itself.

The provision on Islam as the religion of the Federation was inserted in the Part 1 of the Constitution, that is in Article 3(1) which indicates the importance of the provision in the Constitutional structure; whereas the supremacy of the Federal Constitution is positioned after the provision on Islam, which is in Article 4.

Tan Sri Apandi Ali in the high profile case of Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri stated that:

“The Article places the religion of Islam at par with the other basic structures of the Constitution, as it is the 3 rd in the order of precedence of the Articles that were within the confines of Part I of the Constitution”

In fact Article 3(4) which says that “nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution” has further accentuate the matter.

 Prof Shad words, “According to it, religious enforcement authorities come under the patronage of the Sultans, not state governments. This is a remarkable vision of an autonomous, almost all-powerful, religious elite that is like a state within a state”, for me is uncalled for because it questions the rights of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam which is protected by the Article 181.

Section 3(1)(f) of the Sedition Act says, “A “seditious tendency” is a tendency to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution”.

It was also reported that the false allegations by Prof Shad had led IKSIM to lodge a police report against him, The Star and Sin Chew Daily; which was responded by G25’s Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin as reported in Free Malaysia Today (FMT) under the title, “G25 calls for action against Putrajaya-linked institute”.

The G25 member went further saying, “Iksim had singled out Amanah, G25, Sisters in Islam (SIS) and Islamic Renaissance Front (IRF) as liberals”.

She said, “If they (Iksim) can lodge a police report against Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi, similarly I am in a very good position to make a police report against them and sue them for defamation”.

This is the part where it gets very hilarious; G25, in another article, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara” argues that liberal is something positive so why is the fuss over the word now?

“Note that the word “liberal” is used in both versions in the context of something positive and beneficial to our ambitions to become a united, happy and prosperous country.” – G25 (FMT)

In her speech, “Malaysia as a Secular State”, The Malaysian Insight (TMI) reported G25’s Noor Farida as saying that Malaysia is neither a theocracy states nor secular state!

But I have to highlight that G25 also claimed that Malaysia is a secular state and at other time a secular democratic state!

It is very hard either to try to make sense of what they are trying to say or to take G25’s words seriously when its members keep on changing their minds and seems very confused, for example on their perception regarding the ideology of Malaysia.

To top it all, in its eagerness, FMT made a grave mistake in its reporting: 

  1. Iksim was established on Dec 9, 2014 after consent from the Conference of Rulers, with the objective of upholding Islam as the country’s official religion.
  2. According to its official website, Iksim was established to fulfil the wishes of the country’s Muslim community to defend the Malay Rulers and uphold Islam as the official religion of the federation.

IKSIM clearly states that Islam is the religion of the Federation hence not only FMT’s wrong reporting defames IKSIM, but also the Constitution itself since the addition of the word “official” undermines the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation.

Taking G25’s Noor Farida Ariffin’s advice, IKSIM should “lodge a police report or even take legal action” against FMT for defaming both IKSIM and Article 3(1) of the Constitution.

Rather than confusing others, G25’s Datuk Noor Farida should walk the talk by making a police report against IKSIM to settle the matter once and for all and to prove that she and her friends from G25 are not the ones who are really confused not only about the truth but also in making their own opinions and views.

Please be reminded that, causing disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill will, or prejudicing on grounds of religion” is an offence under Section 298 of the Penal Code. 

Related Articles:

G25 Yang Terlalu Keliru

Saya amat tertarik membaca tajuk tulisan G25 yang disiarkan oleh  Free Malaysia Today (FMT), namun saya hairan kenapa G25 menggunakan ungkapan ‘place of pride’ sedangkan ungkapan yang betul dan tepat ialah “pride of place”, jika apa yang cuba G25 gambarkan dengan ungkapan itu ialah ‘mempunyai tempat yang penting dan istimewa’.

Menariknya kini G25 mengakui bahawa Islam adalah agama Persekutuan dan tidak lagi agama rasmi negara seperti dakwaan ahlinya Tawfik Tun Dr. Ismail: tetapi pendapat mereka masih sama; seolah-olah tiada bezanya di antara ‘agama negara’ dan ‘agama rasmi negara’.

Di bawah tajuk, “G25: The word “liberal” has place of pride in Rukun Negara”, G25 mendakwa perkataan “liberal” seperti yang dilabelkan ke atas mereka, telah digunakan untuk menghina umat Islam yang percaya kepada nilai demokrasi sejagat, hak asasi manusia, kesaksamaan gender dan menghormati kepelbagaian budaya dan segala bentuk kepelbagaian.

“G25 has often been labelled as “liberal” by its critics, using a word which is becoming a derogatory term in Malaysia to describe Muslims who believe in the universal values of democracy, human rights, gender equality and respect for multiculturalism and diversity.” – G25

Malah, G25 menuduh bahawa perkataan “liberal” disalahgunakan olen pihak penguatkuasa agama dan “ekstrimis” untuk memburukkan golongan yang mempunyai pendapat yang berbeza tentang bangsa, agama dan politik.

“It is a word which has been abused by the religious authorities and extremists to demonise those who have different opinions on matters of race, religion and politics.” – G25

Kenyataan-kenyataan di atas, jelas menunjukkan kumpulan G25 bersikap ‘double standard’, mereka tidak senang bila dilabelkan “liberal”, namun pada masa yang sama, G25 merasa mempunyai hak untuk mengutuk dan melabelkan orang lain sebagai “ekstrimis”!

Lebih teruk lagi, G25 berhujah bahawa perkataan “liberal” mempunyai ‘tempat yang penting dan istimewa’ di dalam Rukun Negara!

“We, the members of G25, would like to remind our critics that in the Rukun Negara, the word “liberal” has a place of pride in the five principles of the national ideology aimed at bringing the various races together for national unity and development.” – G25

Hujah G25 lagi “liberal” sebenarnya ialah satu sikap yang positif, malah menjadi salah satu hala tuju negara, selah-olah Rukun Negara dan hala tuju negara kita ini bersifat “liberal”. 

“In the preamble to the Rukun Negara, it states that one of Malaysia’s aims are: “menjamin satu cara yang liberal terhadap tradisi-tradisi kebudayaannya yang kaya dan berbagai corak”.” – G25

Nampaknya G25 sudah terlalu keliru sehingga gagal memahami maksud “liberal” dalam ayat di atas, yang hanyalah merujuk kepada kebudayaan sahaja; dan bukannya kepada soal agama atau kepercayaan.

Perkara ini disahkan sendiri oleh Prof. Dr Shamrahayu Abd Aziz, di mana Aunty Shamrahayu menerangkan kepada saya bahawa “liberal” dalam ayat tersebut bermakna keterbukaan menerima budaya pelbagai kaum, dan bersifat dan bersikap inklusif dengan prinsip asas; tetapi tanpa mengabaikan Tuhan dan prinsip kesopanan dan kesusilaan.

Ini kerana Malaysia adalah sebuah negara Islam, yang tidak mengabaikan prinsip-prinsip agama; sampai ke tahap Perkara 37 Perlembagaan Persekutuan memperuntukkan bahawa setiap Yang Di-Pertuan Agong sebagai Ketua Utama Negara mesti bersumpah atas nama Allah untuk pada setiap masa memlihara agama Islam sebelum menjalankan tugas baginda sebagai Ketua Utama Negara.

G25 adalah puak Islam liberal kerana mereka berusaha meliberalkan agama Islam, menolak, menentang dan mempertikaikan hukum-hukum Islam termasuk hukuman ke atas pesalah syariah.

Sebagai contoh, G25 mendawa kesalahan syariah hanyalah ‘personal sin’ di sisi Perlembagaan dan bukannya satu jenayah yang mesti dihukum oleh mahkamah, sedangkan kedudukan Mahkamah Syariah telah diperuntukkan oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan melalui Perkara 121(1A).

“… LGBT, free sex etc are wrong but that these are personal sins, not crimes as defined in constitutional law.” – G25

Nyata G25 gagal memahami Perlembagaan Persekutuan khasnya Perkata 3(1) dan sewenang-wenangnya telah memfitnah Malaysia sebagai sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

 “We in G25 will defend the country’s secular democracy based on the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the country.” – G25

Bagaimanakah Perlembagaan Persekutuan yang jelas mengangkat Islam sebagai agama negara boleh dituduh menjadikan Malaysia bersifat demokrasi sekular sedangkan perkataan demokrasi dan sekular tidak pernah tertulis di dalam Perlembagaan?

Saya mencabar G25 untuk membuktikan di dalam Perkara atau Jadual manakah dalam Perlembagaan yang  menyebut bahawa Malaysia adalah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular!

“The constitution was written with the intention that while Islam is the religion of the federation, the laws of the country should follow the universal values of justice which were in existence long before independence.” G25

Kenyataan di atas membuktikan bahawa G25 mesti kembali belajar daripada orang yang lebih pakar kerana G25 bukan setakat buta Perlembagaan, malah buta sejarah.

Sejarah negara membuktikan bahawa kerajaan-kerajaan Melayu dahulunya adalah Kerajaan Melayu Islam yang mana sistem perundangannya adalah berasaskan Islam dan bukannya mengikut nilai keadilan sejagat seperti yang direka oleh G25.

Maka, di atas dasar apakah G25 mahu berhujah jika ternyata mereka sendiri yang sebenarnya tersangat keliru dan yang gagal memahami asas kenegaraan Malaysia?

Malah, fakta yang mereka berikan bukan sahaja tidak benar, malah adalah bercanggahan di antara satu sama lain!

G25 memperakui bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan tetapi pada masa yang sama mendakwa Malaysia ialah sebuah negara demokrasi sekular serta menuduh pihak penguatkuasa agama melampaui batasan Perlembagaan dan menganggap perlaksanaan undang-undang Islam adalah melanggar prinsip-prinsip demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia!

Adalah tidak masuk akal jika sebuah negara Islam boleh bersifat sekular pada masa yang sama kerana sekular bermakna memisahkan agama dari pentadbiran negara sedangkan kerajaan Malaysia mempunyai tanggung jawab keperlembagaan untuk menjaga kesucian Islam di negara ini.

G25 lantang memburukkan pihak berkuasa agama yang menjalankan tugas mengikut Perlembagaan untuk mempertahankan kesucian Islam:

“… religious authorities go beyond the limits of the constitution in exercising their powers, and introduce laws to control and police the behaviour of Muslims against the principles of democracy and human rights, G25 has a duty to respond by raising the issues of law and order …” – G25

Lebih parah, G25 yang liberal ini mahu menyesatkan umat Islam di negara kita dengan mendesak kerajaan membenarkan golongan liberal dan sesat yang G25 dakwa mempunyai pandangan yang “controversial and radical” untuk bebas menulis dan berucap di negara ini, sebagai contoh buku mereka, “Breaking the Silence: Islam in a Constitutional Democracy” yang diharamkan oleh kerajaan; walaupun perkara itu bertentangan dengan undang-undang negara.

Penghakiman Mahkamah Rayuan kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Kerajaan Malaysia & Menteri Dalam Negeri jelas membuktikan hal ini, di mana YA Dato’ Abdul Aziz Rahim menegaskan bahawa:

I would add however that the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation, to my mind imposes certain obligation on the power that be to promote and defend Islam as well to protect its sanctity. In one article written by Muhammad Imam, entitled Freedom of Religion under Federal Constitution of Malaysia – A Reappraisal [1994] 2 CLJ lvii (June) referred to by the learned counsel for the 8th appellant it was said that: “Article 3 is not a mere declaration. But it imposes positive obligation on the Federation to protect, defend, promote Islam and to give effect by appropriate state action, to the injunction of Islam and able to facilitate and encourage people to hold their life according to the Islamic injunction spiritual and daily life.”

Hujah dangkal G25 seterusnya yang menuduh ‘founding forefathers’ mahukan Malaysia menjadi sebuah negara demokrasi sekular yang liberal dapat saya patahkan dengan hujah Hakim Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif di dalam kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd and Another v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor

“Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. Taking the Federal Constitution as a whole, it is clear that it was the intention of the framers of our Constitution to allow Muslims in this country to be also governed by Islamic personal law.”

Seperti golongan liberal lainnya G25 sengaja memfitnah bahawa Perkara 10(1) memberikan kebebasan bersuara sehingga bebas menghina dan menafsir Islam secara liberal dan sesuka hati; atau menurut G25 pendapat yang “controversial and radical”, malah mendakwa pendapat sesat sebegitu adalah satu budaya yang sihat dalam memahami Islam.

Ini adalah satu lagi fitnah kerana di dalam penghakiman kes Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v. Menteri Dalam Negeri and Kerajaan Malaysia, Tan Sri Mohamed Apandi Ali yang ketika itu ialah Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, berhujah:

“[36] The alleged infringement of the fundamental liberties of the respondent can be negated by trite law that any freedom is not absolute. Freedom cannot be unfettered, otherwise, like absolute power, it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Freedom of speech and expression under Article 10(1) are subjected to restrictions imposed by law under Article 10(2)(a). Freedom of religion, under Article 11(1), as explained above is subjected to Article 11(4) and is to be read with Article 3(1).”

G25 dengan sendirinya telah membuktikan bahawa mereka adalah sebuah golongan liberal yang keliru, bercakap melawan fakta, ‘double standard’ dan tidak profesional; mereka bebas menuduh orang lain sebagai extrimis dan melanggar Perlembagaan sedangkan mereka sendirilah sebenarnya yang gagal memahami ajaran Islam yang sebenarnya serta buta Perlembagaan.

Anehnya bila mempertahankan suara liberal, G25 melaungkan hak kebebasan bersuara walaupun ianya “controversial and radical” namun menentang suara pejuang Islam yang mereka gelar extrimis serta tugas pihak berkuasa Islam yang mereka fitnah melampaui batas Perlembagaan, seolah-olah “constitutional guarantee on the freedom of speech and expression” hanya sah kepada puak liberal dan penentang Islam sahaja!

Semoga G25 yang telah sedar bahawa Islam adalah agama bagi Persekutuan, boleh belajar memahami ajaran Islam  yang sebenarnya  serta suatu hari nanti akan bersama-sama mempertahankan Islam Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah, mazhab Syafie daripada anasir yang mahu meruntuhkan akidah umat Islam di Malaysia, Amin.

Related Article:

Tanah Runtuh Tanjung Bungah- 3 Maut, 11 Hilang

(Photo credit to Free Malaysia Today)

11 orang pekerja di sebuah tapak pembinaan di Tanjung Bungah berhampiran Kolej Tunku Abdul Rahman, Kampus Pulau Pinang masih hilang selepas kejadian tanah runtuh yang telah meragut 3 nyawa.

Dalam kejadian kira-kira pukul 8.50 pagi tadi, kesemua mereka sedang bekerja di tapak pembinaan kondominium berhampiran lereng bukit sebelum ditimpa tanah runtuh dari kecerunan kira-kira 10 meter.

Kejadian itu telah menyebabkan 14 buruh binaan asing dan seorang warga tempatan tertimbus sehingga sedalam hampir 35 meter di dalam keadaan tanah yang berselut.

Menurut Pengarah Jabatan Bomba dan Penyelamat Negeri, Saadon Mokhtar, dua mayat ditemukan pukul 9.15 pagi dan 10.45 pagi tadi manakala mayat ketiga kira-kira pukul 1 petang tadi.

Ateisme Mencabar Kedaulatan Negara

Sejak beberapa hari yang lalu, beberapa portal berita pro-pembangkang giat menyiarkan laporan yang bersifat tidak benar dan prujudis tentang isu golongan ateis yang asalnya beragama Islam di Malaysia ekoran pendedahan tentang kumpulan Atheist Republic.

Free Malaysia Today (FMT) melaporkan seorang ahli akademik Amerika Syarikat yang berpangkalan di Washington, Prof. Zachary Abuza mengkritik reaksi kerajaan Malaysia terhadap kumpulan ini.

Menurut FMT, Abuza berkata Malaysia bukan lagi sebuah negara yang mengamalkan kesederhanaan seperti sebelum ini.

Ini adalah satu fitnah jahat kerana fahaman ateisme adalah bercanggah dengan undang-undang tertinggi Negara; lebih-lebih lagi untuk bekas umat Islam.

Jelaslah, terdapat usaha terancang untuk menghalalkan ateisme dan murtad.

Menggunakan hujah liberal dari kumpulan yang sememangnya tidak faham atau ‘yang sengaja buat-buat tidak faham’, porta-porta berita pro-pembangkang dilihat cuba menimbulkan persepsi perundangan yang salah dan bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan untuk menjustifikasikan desakan mereka supaya orang Islam bebas berfahaman ateis.

FMT juga melaporkan kata-kata Prof. Datuk Dr. Shad Saleem Faruqi bahawa Perlembagaan Persekutuan tidak menyebut mengenai murtad dan “ia tidak mengharamkan murtad dan tidak membenarkannya”, yang memberi persepsi seolah-olah murtad tidak bercanggah dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan maka tidak boleh ada peruntukan undang-undang yang sah untuk mengawal gejala songsang ini.

Perkara 3(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menyatakan:

“Islam ialah agama bagi Persekutuan; tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan dengan aman dan damai di mana-mana Bahagian Persekutuan.”

Ini membuktikan bahawa asas kenegaraan kita ialah Islam sebagai agama bagi negara ini tetapi agama-agama lain boleh diamalkan selagi amalan mereka tidak menjejas kesucian Islam dan tidak menimbulkan apa-apa ancaman atau apa-apa kemungkinan ancaman dan kemungkinan yang boleh menjadi ancaman terhadap agama Islam. 

Perkara ini telah ditegaskan oleh Tan Sri Apandi Ali  yang ketika itu Hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, di dalam kes Mahkamah Rayuan Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur v Kementerian Dalam Negeri & Kerajaan Malaysia:

[33] In short, Article 3(1) was a by-product of the social contract entered into by our founding fathers who collectively produced the Federal Constitution, which is recognized as the Supreme Law of the country. It is my judgment that the purpose and intention of the insertion of the words: “in peace and harmony” in Article 3(1) is to protect the sanctity of Islam as the religion of the country and also to insulate against any threat faced or any possible and probable threat to the religion of Islam.

Perkara 11(4) Perlembagaan Persekutuan menegaskan:

Undang-undang Negeri dan berkenaan dengan Wilayah-Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Labuan dan Putrajaya, undang-undang persekutuan boleh mengawal atau menyekat pengembangan apa-apa doktrin atau kepercayaan agama di kalangan orang yang menganuti agama Islam.

Ini bermakna Perlembagaan Persekutuan membenarkan undang-undang Negeri dan Persekutuan digubal untuk menyekat penyebaran perkara yang boleh memurtadkan umat Islam termasuk penyebaran fahaman ateis.

Di dalam penghakiman kes Mahkamah Persekutuan ZI Publications Sdn Bhd dan lain-lain v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, Presiden Mahkamah Rayuan ketika itu, Tan Sri Md Raus Sharif menegaskan:

Federal Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to legislate and enact offences against the precepts of Islam. 

Malah “Kebebasan bercakap, berhimpun dan berpersatuan” di dalam Perkara 10(1) adalah tertakluk kepada Fasal (2), (3) dan (4), dimana:

(2) Parlimen boleh melalui undang-undang mengenakan—(a) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (a) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaatdemi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau manamana bahagiannya, hubungan baik dengan negara-negaralain, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral dan sekatan sekatan yang bertujuan untuk melindungi keistimewaan Parlimen atau mana-mana Dewan Undangan atau untuk membuat peruntukan menentang penghinaan

(c) ke atas hak yang diberikan oleh perenggan (c) Fasal (1), apa-apa sekatan yang didapatinya perlu atau suai manfaat demi kepentingan keselamatan Persekutuan atau mana-mana bahagiannya, ketenteraman awam atau prinsip moral.

Hujah ni diperkuatkan lagi oleh Perkara 37 yang mewajibkan Yang Di-Pertuan Agong untuk bersumpah di atas nama Allah S.W.T. untuk memelihara pada setiap masa agama Islam, seperti apa yang tertulis di dalam Jadual Keempat Perlembagaan Persekutuan, sebelum memulakan tugas Baginda sebagai Yang Di-Pertuan Agong.

Maka, negara mempunyai ‘constitutional duty’ untuk memelihara dan menjaga kesucian agama Islam daripada apa-apa ancaman, kemungkinan ancaman dan apa-apa yang akan memungkinkan berlakunya ancaman terhadap agama Islam, termasuk ancaman pemurtadan termasuk fahaman ateisme.

Malah, menurut Ketua Pegawai Eksekutif IKSIM yang merupakan seorang pakar Perlembagaan, Dato’ Prof. Mahamad Naser Disa, golongan ateis tidak mempunyai hak Perlembagaan (constitutional rights) di negara ini kerana Perlembagaan negara hanya mengiktiraf hak rakyat yang beragama seperti tertulis di dalam Perkara 3 dan 11 dan Prinsip pertama Rukun Negara iaitu “Percaya Kepada Tuhan”.

Huraian prinsip pertama Rukun Negara kepada kedaulatan negara amat terang dan jelas:

Bangsa dan Negara ini telah diwujudkan atas kepercayaan yang kukuh kepada Tuhan. Sesungguhnya dengan nama Tuhanlah, Bangsa dan Negara ini diwujudkan sebagai sebuah Bangsa dan Negara yang berdaulat. – Jabatan Perpaduan Dan Integrasi Negara (Jabatan Perdana Menteri) 

Namun terdapat pendapat songsang dan salah yang menafsirkan hak beragama seperti yang di jelaskan di dalam Perkara 11(1) Perlembagaan Persekutuan sebagai termasuk hak untuk tidak beragama dan kepercayaan kepada Tuhan juga merangkumi tidak percaya kepada Tuhan.

Tafsiran songsang itu tidak benar kerana asas pengertian sesuatu undang-undang itu mestilah, pada mulanya, dicari dalam bahasa undang-undang itu ditulis, dan jika bahasanya terang dan jelas, maka kewajiban tafsiran tidak timbul dan fungsi tunggal mahkamah adalah untuk menguatkuasakannya mengikut istilahnya.

The 1917 American case of Caminetti v. United States had held that “it is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain… the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” And if a statute’s language is plain and clear, the court further warned that “the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion,”

Jelasnya tafsiran undang-undang tidak boleh dibuat dengan sesuka hati, apalagi dengan menambah perkataan yang tidak ada tertulis di dalam undang-undang itu, dalam hal ini, di dalam Perlembagaan Persekutuan.

Inilah nilai dan fahaman songsang golongan liberal yang mahu merosakkan tatasusila dan tamadun rakyat Malaysia untuk membebaskan diri daripada undang-undang agama yang akhirnya mennghakis sifat ketamadunan masyarakat kita.

Menurut seorang lagi pakar Perlembagaan Prof. Dr. Shamrahayu Abd. Aziz, hak asasi hanya boleh menjadi hak apabila ianya tidak melanggar undang-undang, maka mereka yang berfahaman ateis tiada hak dan tidak boleh menuntut hak mereka kerana Perlembagaan Persekutuan hanya mengiktiraf rakyat yang beragama.

Sesungguhnya dengan nama Tuhanlah, Bangsa dan Negara ini diwujudkan sebagai sebuah Bangsa dan Negara yang berdaulat, maka jelaslah fahaman ateisme yang tidak percaya kewujudan Tuhan mencabar dan menjejaskan kedaulatan negara.

Tun M, Tolong Jawab Soalan Saya Yang Tun Gagal Jawab Dalam Surat Tun

“Nothing to Hide 2.0” forum, which is organised by Parti Pribumi Bersatu Malaysia (PPBM) and to be held on Aug 13, 2017 is supposed to be the platform where the party promises to answer all the questions asked by its audience.

Anyhow, funnily Free Malaysia Today (FMT) reported that, “Mahathir said the platform would be a good place for Najib to address the allegations against him once and for all”.

In my opinion, in contrary to what was said by Tun M as reported by FMT, PPBM should not waste its time and money on PM Najib, but should make full use of the opportunity to clear out issues that are bothering some of their supporters and the general public, especially about the vision and mission, as well as the direction of the party in the future.

I have an important question that Tun M had failed to answer in the letter that was sent to me by Tun M as to answer an important question regarding PPBM’s agreement with DAP, PKR, PAN that I wrote in my blog post on the 10th of January, 2017.

(Please read: Perjanjian DAP, PKR, PAN, PPBM Untuk Meminda Perkara 3(1)?)

In the agreement which was named, Perjanjian Kerjasama Pakatan Harapan – PPBM, the four parties agreed on several main issues including to uphold the Federal Constitution.

In the post, I asked why did the parties involved added the word “bebas” to the Article 3(1) which will definitely undermine the position of Islam as the religion of the Federation and distort the interpretation of the Article 3(1)?

To my surprise, on January 12, 2017, I received a letter from Tun M himself to answer the question I had asked in my post.

The letter was sent by the Office of Datuk Badariah Arshad, Director of  Operations, Perdana Leadership Foundation (Yayasan Kepimpinan Perdana) to my father via e-mail, to be forwarded to me.

Please click here for: “Surat Balas Tun M Tidak Menjawab Persoalan”

Unfortunately, not only Tun M’s explanation failed to answer my question, but it made the matter even more confusing.

In contrary to what was written by Tun, the Article 3(1) is the Article that confers Islam as the religion of the Federation and it’s position over other religions in Malaysia and not about the rights to convert to other religions as what Tun tried to explain in his letter.

The letter that was sent to me by Tun Dr. Mahathir.

So, if I will be able to attend the program, I really want to ask Tun M the above question as the issue is crucial for it touches on the supreme law of our Nation and hopefully this time Tun M will be able to answer my question because he has Nothing to Hide.

Apakah Tindakan Sivarasa Satu Contoh “Good Governance” PKR?

Ahli Parlimen PKR Subang, Sivarasa Rasiah telah membuat satu kenyataan membela diri setelah Sultan Selangor, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah menzahirkan rasa teramat murka dan dukacita dengan tindakannya yang memasuki Masjid An Nur, Kampung Melayu Subang pada minggu lalu dan menggunakan ruangan solat sebagai tempat berpolitik.

Dipetik daripada Free Malaysia Today, Sivarasa berkata:

“Saya hanya buat ucapan ringkas menyampaikan salam Ramadan kepada hadirin dan menegaskan keyakinan saya kepada komitmen kerajaan Selangor terus bimbing institusi surau dan masjid di Selangor,” Sivarasa Rasiah.

Saya merasakan kenyataan Sivarasa itu amat biadap dan tidak masuk akal, malah pemimpin PKR itu bukan sahaja telah  melanggar titah tuanku Sultan Selangor, malah telah mempertikaikan titah tuanku Sultan.

Menafikan menggunakan masjid untuk tempat berpoltik, Sivarasa tidak boleh menafikan kenyatan telah berucap di kawasan solat saf hadapan masjid tersebut; di mana peristiwa itu telah dibuktikan melalui gambar-gambar yang tersiar di media.

Tuanku Sultan Selangor sebagai Ketua Agama Islam Negeri Selangor berhak menentukan adab bagi orang-orang bukan Islam di masjid-masjid kerana baginda bukan sahaja mahu menjaga kesucian dan kemurnian masjid-masjid di negeri Selangor, malah menjaga kesucian agama Islam; dan Sivarasa Rasiah sebagai rakyat Selangor mesti patuh akan titah baginda.

PKR berbangga dengan apa yang mereka dakwa sebagai mengamalkan “good governance” dalam mentadbir negeri Selangor; apakah sikap tidak menghormati agama Islam ini satu contoh “good governance” PKR?

Sivarasa Rasiah sebagai pemimpin di Selangor sepatutnya menghormati agama Islam dan adab di masjid dan bukannya mempertahankan tindakkannya yang telah menghina masjid, iaitu berada di kawasan saf hadapan masjid tersebut.

Soalan saya:

  1. Apakah ini contoh “good governance” yang dibanggakan oleh PKR, iaitu pemimpin tidak menghormati Islam, agama bagi negeri Selangor dan agama bagi negara Malaysia dan melanggar titah tuanku Sultan Selangor?

  2. Apakah ada keperluan bagi Sivarasa Rasiah sebagai seorang bukan Islam berada di kawasan solat masjid, dan berucap di kawasan saf hadapan masjid?

  3. Apakah “ucapan ringkas menyampaikan salam Ramadan kepada hadirin dan menegaskan keyakinan saya kepada komitmen kerajaan Selangor terus bimbing institusi surau dan masjid di Selangor” oleh pemimpin bukan Islam mesti dibuat di kawasan solat saf hadapan masjid?

  4. Apakah sumbangan yang disampaikan boleh menjustifikasikan tindakannya yang menggunakan ruang solat untuk berucap?

  5. Adakah ini satu contoh cara kerajaan Selangor dalam membimbing institusi surau dan masjid di Selangor?